Disqus - Latest Comments for veblenhttp://disqus.com/by/veblen/enWed, 13 Nov 2013 15:32:34 -0000Re: In sanctions&#8217; wake, three trustees fought, then fell in linehttp://www.bagwellforpennstate.com/blog/in-sanctions-wake-three-trustees-fought-then-fell-in-line/#comment-1121858792<p>Your discussion depends on suppositions about the discussions that Erickson had with the NCAA. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, provided that you have some model of Erickson's administrative style which is supported by past observations of that style. However you give no indication of any depth of thought about Erickson's administrative style and you make assumptions which puts Erickson in the worst possible light. This is likely colored by your transparent dislike for the outcome of the negotiations. Other assumptions would be more favorable to Erickson.</p><p>At this point, it is unknowable what transpired in those discussions. Did Erickson ask about his options? Don't know. Was he told that the suspension of play did not have support of the majority of the board? Don't know. Did he ask what other options had been discussed? Don't know. Was he told that <strong>the only other option discussed was the "death penalty"</strong>? Don't know.</p><p>Let's ask ourselves what would have happened if he asked about his options and the answer was the <strong>only other thing</strong> we considered was the <strong>"death penalty"</strong>. What interpretation would you expect him to give that answer?</p><p>Negotiations are not deterministic and a negotiating partner is unlikely to put all of the cards on the table simply because it demanded of them. Further, in the case of the NCAA, the organization could unilaterally impose whatever penalty it wanted to. This gives them the upper hand in the negotiation.</p><p>Because of the lack of determinism, one must look at the expected costs during negotiations. Sign the decent decree with known costs or try to negotiate a better deal in which the outcomes are more sever sanctions, including the possibility the death penalty, or less sever sanctions. Even if there was a low probability of the death penalty, the costs associated with it would be orders of magnitude greater than the consent decree. Hence the expected cost of that negotiation would likely greatly exceed the know costs of signing the consent decree.</p><p>I'm sure that I'm not going to change your mind, but the expected cost of trying is rather low for me. </p>veblenWed, 13 Nov 2013 15:32:34 -0000Re: In sanctions&#8217; wake, three trustees fought, then fell in linehttp://www.bagwellforpennstate.com/blog/in-sanctions-wake-three-trustees-fought-then-fell-in-line/#comment-1111882595<p>From the passage of the ESPN interview just before the one you quote:<br></p><blockquote><br><br><em>The only potential penalty that we had some extended discussion around was suspension of play, whether that ought to be part of a basket of punitive and corrective measures</em>. There were people who felt that was appropriate, but the overwhelming position of members of both the executive committee and the Division I board was to not include suspension of play. And therefore we moved quickly to a consideration of the actions you heard about today. And that had unanimous support from both groups.<br></blockquote><p></p><p>So, suspension of play was on the table as he said in his clarifying remarks.</p><p>Let's do a little semantic analysis. Think back to the Cold War or if you aren't old enough to remember do a little Googling. Erikson certainly is old enough to remember. At that time, it was very common to talk about the threat of nuclear war whenever there was a conflict between the US and Soviet Union. The idiom did not mean that one country or the other had explicitly threatened the use of nuclear weapons, rather what it meant was that any confrontation between the countries could lead to a nuclear war, i.e. nuclear war was a definite risk in any confrontation.</p><p>The "death penalty" was an option which was discussed before the decent decree was put in front of him. Had he rejected the decree or tried to negotiate a weaker decree, there was the real risk,or threat in the idiomatic usage of the Cold War, that the "death penalty" would have been imposed. I think it is very plausible that this is the meaning of threat that Erikson had in mind.</p>veblenWed, 06 Nov 2013 18:55:11 -0000Re: In sanctions&#8217; wake, three trustees fought, then fell in linehttp://www.bagwellforpennstate.com/blog/in-sanctions-wake-three-trustees-fought-then-fell-in-line/#comment-1107627005<p>Are any of you aware that<a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2012-07-29/Ed-Ray-discusses-Penn-State-penalties/56579482/1" rel="nofollow"> Ed Ray has clarified the remarks</a> he made to ESPN?</p><p></p><blockquote><br><br><strong>Penn State President Rodney Erickson said his <br>options were to accept the sanctions or a death penalty of four years. Is that correct</strong>?<br><br><br> <i>My sense is we're now inventing stories out of word choices</i>. If I were Rod, or if I were advising Rod, I would have said, "We faced a very real risk of the death penalty. It is on the table, and I think this is the right outcome for us because if we got the death penalty, it would be terrible." Because you know what? Before we voted, it was on the table. And it wasn't there as a threat — it was a real risk that we as a group, the executive committee and the Division I board, would have said, "Yes, we want that in the bundle." That's why I've told everyone who's asked … it wouldn't have been just the death penalty. It would have been the death penalty plus presumably all of the corrective actions and some elements of the other punitive actions that would have been a bundle. The first thing we voted on was would it include the death penalty or not, and it wasn't unanimously no. There were people who voted for the death penalty. It was a real risk. If I had to do parsing words,<i> I'd say Rod is absolutely correct. He was looking at a world in which there was a very real risk that they would get the death penalty that wasn't decided until we took our vote.</i> But nobody said, "If you don't do X, we're going to do Y." That conversation never happened. <br></blockquote>veblenSun, 03 Nov 2013 16:34:23 -0000Re:
Radical Ideas for the NCAA: One Way to Pay College Athletes http://www.statecollege.com/news/columns/radical-ideas-for-the-ncaa-one-way-to-pay-college-athletes,1399020/#comment-1086430196<p>...no problem with only true student athletes. However, you may be disappointed in how few are willing to apply for that position. </p>veblenThu, 17 Oct 2013 18:48:19 -0000Re:
Radical Ideas for the NCAA: One Way to Pay College Athletes http://www.statecollege.com/news/columns/radical-ideas-for-the-ncaa-one-way-to-pay-college-athletes,1399020/#comment-1086309448<p>I think it's a great idea! Then again I'd like to see big time college football go away.</p>veblenThu, 17 Oct 2013 16:57:40 -0000Re: Feds cleared Spanier after information from Freehhttp://www.bagwellforpennstate.com/blog/feds-cleared-spanier-after-information-from-freeh/#comment-1078171709<p>I will concede that it is likely that Spanier took a job following his separation from Penn State as president that required a security clearance. I am even willing to concede that it is likely that the clearance was renewed after a review.</p><p>However, there is no reason to think that this renewal is tantamount to the "feds" clearing Spanier of any wrong doing. During the period that he was investigated for the renewal Spanier had not yet been indicted and the Freeh Report had not yet been released. The only blemish on his record at the time was his firing/resignation from Penn State as president. It is likely that the investigation centered on the circumstance of his separation and not anything deeper, since nothing at that point hinted at anything deeper.</p><p>As far as the information that Freeh turned over to federal prosecutors goes, there is no reason to think that the investigators conducting the security clearance investigation--these are not federal prosecutors-- were made aware of it. The information turned over by Freeh did not concern an arrest or conviction, hence it is highly unlikely that it was entered into a database which the security clearance investigators could access. The prosecutors would have had to actively seek out the security clearance investigators to pass on the information. The big question is why would they?</p><p>Frankly, there is even reason to question the rigors of the entire security clearance process as illustrated by this.</p><p></p><blockquote><br>Despite a checkered record while enlisted and an arrest record, Navy <br>Yard gunman Aaron Alexis had a “secret” security clearance that allowed <br>him access to the secure facility, where he killed 12 people Monday <br>morning before being shot dead by law enforcement officers.<br><br>Hagel said that the reviews will attempt to determine how Alexis was able to <br>get and maintain that clearance level in spite of his arrests.<br><br>“Obviously you go back in hindsight and look at all this and there were some red flags, of course there were,” Hagel said. “Should we have picked him up?<br> Why didn’t we? How could we? All those questions need to be answered.”<br><br>Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called for a federal investigation into how Alexis obtained the clearance despite a history of misconduct and <br>previous arrests<br></blockquote><p></p><p><a href="http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/18/20562666-pentagon-announces-probe-of-security-clearance-process?lite" rel="nofollow">http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com...</a></p><p>Is Spanier guilty of the crimes he stands accused of? My informed guess is yes, but he very well may be found innocent at trial.</p><p>No matter what the outcome will be, I really look forward to this trial which will pull back the opaque curtain which hides the inner working of Old Main from the general public.</p>veblenThu, 10 Oct 2013 18:17:31 -0000Re: Feds cleared Spanier after information from Freehhttp://www.bagwellforpennstate.com/blog/feds-cleared-spanier-after-information-from-freeh/#comment-1074922710<p>Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you really don't understand the difference between a press release and a grand jury presentment?</p>veblenTue, 08 Oct 2013 09:47:26 -0000Re: Feds cleared Spanier after information from Freehhttp://www.bagwellforpennstate.com/blog/feds-cleared-spanier-after-information-from-freeh/#comment-1074272508<p>Put your money on Spanier lying....that's what he does.</p><p>Here's a WaPo story about the renewal of the clearance which takes an appropriately skeptical tone.</p><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/graham-spaniers-gig-as-a-federal-worker-is-a-mystery/2012/07/26/gJQAbAx5BX_blog.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...</a></p><p>Do you have a link to where his clearance was confirmed by a PSU spokesman? This is something I have never seen. And keep in mind we aren't talking about him ever having had a clearance we are talking about the renewal following the Sandusky scandal breaking.</p>veblenMon, 07 Oct 2013 20:06:31 -0000Re: Feds cleared Spanier after information from Freehhttp://www.bagwellforpennstate.com/blog/feds-cleared-spanier-after-information-from-freeh/#comment-1074250679<p>Read the first paragraph of the news report included in the email chain. The source for the information about the renewal was Spanier himself. There has never been any independent verification of his claim. The fact that it was widely reported does not change that.</p>veblenMon, 07 Oct 2013 19:40:15 -0000Re: Feds cleared Spanier after information from Freehhttp://www.bagwellforpennstate.com/blog/feds-cleared-spanier-after-information-from-freeh/#comment-1074231923<p>I applaud your work on getting information through RTK requests. Keep up the good work.</p><p>However, there isn't much to this story. The only source for the claim that Spanier received a security clearance following the release of the Freeh Report is a press release from Spanier's lawyer's. This is as true today as every. The email chain that you link to contains Freeh's response a heads up by Tomalis about that press release.</p><p>This does nothing to discredit Freeh's work, since one would have to accept the press release at face value to do so. Having followed Spanier's career for along time, I can tell you there is no reason to take that press release at face value. In fact, I believe that there is far, far less to his claim to have received a security clearance, than Graham wants you to believe.</p>veblenMon, 07 Oct 2013 19:18:18 -0000Re:
McQueary Files To Have Subpoenas Issued http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/mcqueary-files-to-have-subpoenas-issued,1393113/#comment-1070874748<p>Discovery....this is what we've been waiting for....soon there should be real,new information to mull over.</p>veblenFri, 04 Oct 2013 18:40:23 -0000Re: Pa. congressman sets pace in House floor speecheshttp://www.centredaily.com/2013/09/01/3766508/pa-congressman-sets-pace-in-house.html#comment-1028175475<p>You would be surprised at what he says, on the floor. Perhaps you should spend more time researching and less time posting. This is from someone who generally agrees with you.</p>veblenTue, 03 Sep 2013 10:06:43 -0000Re: Pa. congressman sets pace in House floor speecheshttp://www.centredaily.com/2013/09/01/3766508/pa-congressman-sets-pace-in-house.html#comment-1026748600<p>There is a positive side to this:We've got him on record. </p>veblenMon, 02 Sep 2013 15:33:45 -0000Re:
Man Attempts to Pay for Cab Ride With Marijuana, Leaves It As Tip http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/man-attempts-to-pay-for-cab-ride-with-marijuana-leaves-it-as-tip,1377127/#comment-1023773828<p>FYI: Barnard runs North-South not East-West.</p>veblenFri, 30 Aug 2013 17:19:19 -0000Re: Letter to the editor | Seems like a setuphttp://www.centredaily.com/2013/08/29/3760708/letter-to-the-editor-seems-like.html#comment-1023651692<p> Don't bother with 28ed he, she,it(?) is dumber than box of bricks. At one point, this idiot put forward the theory that Three Stooges decided to cover-up the Sandusky matter, not at Paterno's behest, but to protect TSM. Yep, this dope thinks Spanier would risk his and the University's reputation to cover-up for TSM. It doesn't get dumber than that. Those 9 likes 28ed's comment got so far tells you all you need to know about the collective intelligence of the JoeBots.</p>veblenFri, 30 Aug 2013 15:27:44 -0000Re: Letter to the editor | One more mistake by Penn State trusteeshttp://www.centredaily.com/2013/08/14/3735266/letter-to-the-editor-one-more.html#comment-1002709981<p>Cooper used a racial slur. Frazier, who you compare to Cooper, did not use a racial slur. All he did was allude to the fact that Cluck is white. There is no similarity between what Cooper said and what Frazier said. To suggest so, is to engage in race bating. </p>veblenThu, 15 Aug 2013 15:55:24 -0000Re: Letter to the editor | One more mistake by Penn State trusteeshttp://www.centredaily.com/2013/08/14/3735266/letter-to-the-editor-one-more.html#comment-1002648950<p>You're hilarious...a real card.... Bill Levinson didn't want to use inflammatory language....that's a side-splitter. Keep up the good work, you have a career in satire if you want it.</p><p></p>veblenThu, 15 Aug 2013 15:08:24 -0000Re: Letter to the editor | One more mistake by Penn State trusteeshttp://www.centredaily.com/2013/08/14/3735266/letter-to-the-editor-one-more.html#comment-1002505155<p>I'm not sure exactly what you disagree with in my post. But my central point was that characterizing Frazier's remark as a "racial slur" as Bill does is nothing more than common race baiting. Do you disagree with that? Or are you comfortable with Bill's characterization of the Frazier remark as a racial slur?</p><p>Frazier did cop to being racially insensitive. What does that mean? It means that he failed to take into consideration the impact of his remark on the feelings of others. Of course, there is little doubt that all of those hurt feelings were feigned and continued to feigned for political advantage.</p><p>I repeat, Bill is a race baiter and the CDT,which deletes comment for far less, should never have allowed itself to be a formal outlet for this race baiter.</p><p></p>veblenThu, 15 Aug 2013 13:18:52 -0000Re: Letter to the editor | One more mistake by Penn State trusteeshttp://www.centredaily.com/2013/08/14/3735266/letter-to-the-editor-one-more.html#comment-1001193057<p>Yawn....</p>veblenWed, 14 Aug 2013 14:59:09 -0000Re: Letter to the editor | One more mistake by Penn State trusteeshttp://www.centredaily.com/2013/08/14/3735266/letter-to-the-editor-one-more.html#comment-1001163121<p>Keep typing, Bill. You are doing a fine job of making my point.</p>veblenWed, 14 Aug 2013 14:32:27 -0000Re: Letter to the editor | One more mistake by Penn State trusteeshttp://www.centredaily.com/2013/08/14/3735266/letter-to-the-editor-one-more.html#comment-1001142509<p>A little selective editing there, Sparky.</p><p><em><strong>Frazier was trying to make the point</strong> that people such as Cluck and our letter writer were delusional by comparing them to those who thought that OJ was innocent of murder.</em></p><p>Nifty attempt to gain the high ground for a common race baiter.</p><p>And at any rate, we are not debating whether comparing a bunch of delusional JoeBots to those that thought OJ was innocent was fair to those that thought OJ was innocent. </p>veblenWed, 14 Aug 2013 14:15:46 -0000Re: Letter to the editor | One more mistake by Penn State trusteeshttp://www.centredaily.com/2013/08/14/3735266/letter-to-the-editor-one-more.html#comment-1001032461<p>Sorry, you read far too much into that clause, which was little more than an aside, in order stir up the rubes. That is classic race baiting.</p><p></p>veblenWed, 14 Aug 2013 13:21:17 -0000Re: Letter to the editor | One more mistake by Penn State trusteeshttp://www.centredaily.com/2013/08/14/3735266/letter-to-the-editor-one-more.html#comment-1000893760<p><em>Trustee Kenneth Frazier, meanwhile, lost control of his temper to the <br>extent that he directed a racial slur against an alumnus who challenged <br>the quality of the Freeh Report.Read<br> more here: <br><a href="http://www.centredaily.com/2013/08/14/3735266/letter-to-the-editor-one-more.html#comment-1000707251#storylink=cpy" rel="nofollow">http://www.centredaily.com/201...</a><br></em></p><p>This is an outrageous characterization of the exchange between Frazier and Cluck. Frazier was trying to make the point that people such as Cluck and our letter writer were delusional by comparing them to those who thought that OJ was innocent of murder. But he comparison wasn't perfect, because the OJ is innocent crowd is primarily black and Cluck is white. So, Frazier added the clause, "that looks like you". Certainly, Frazier didn't need to raise this point. And he would have been better off had he not since it has given his unscrupulous adversaries an opening. But it wasn't racist.</p><p>Here is the context:</p><p><em>“If you cared about that, you are one of the few people in this country, that looks like you, who actually believes the O.J. Simpson not guilty verdict was correct. And you know you do."</em></p><p>It is difficult to see how this can be construed as being racist toward whites, since Frazier was stating the obvious that it was mostly blacks who thought that OJ was innocent, which is hardly putting blacks in a favorable light. And pointing out, obliquely, that Cluck is white is not racist.</p><p>Nope, Cluck, who pushed this meme, Bleher, who has promoted it on his blog, and Levinson, in this letter, are engaged classic race baiting.</p><p>And the CDT should not allow itself to be used to by race baiters.</p>veblenWed, 14 Aug 2013 12:05:57 -0000Re: Letter to the editor | Fast-food workers fought for dignityhttp://www.centredaily.com/2013/08/09/3727892/letter-to-the-editor-fast-food.html#comment-995854080<p>For the record, child labor laws are being weakened by Republicans throughout the U.S. And Newt Gingrich, "the stupid man's idea of what a smart man sounds like", as Krugman wrote, has come out in favor of loosening these laws.</p><p><em>Republican governors and state lawmakers, who succeeded this year in curbing union powers, are pushing to revise their child-labor laws to help companies such as groceries get workers. Wisconsin will let employers treat teenagers as adults in pay and hours, and Maine lawmakers want to let companies keep teens working longer hours.</em></p><p><em>[...]</em></p><p><em>Gingrich used a speech at Harvard University last month to depict the restrictions as undermining opportunities for the poor.</em></p><p><em>"It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid," the former House speaker said.</em></p><p><em>He reaffirmed the position during a Dec. 10 debate <br>among the Republican candidates in Iowa, suggesting children replace union janitors in New York's public schools.</em></p><p><em>"You give lots of poor kids a work experience in the cafeteria, in the school library, in the front office," Gingrich said. "I'll stand by the idea young people ought to learn how to work. Middle-class kids do it routinely. We should give poor kids the same chance to pursue happiness."</em></p><p><em></em><br><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Newt-Gingrich-leads-push-to-ease-child-labor-laws-2413329.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.sfgate.com/business...</a></p>veblenSat, 10 Aug 2013 17:23:31 -0000Re: Letter to the editor | Fast-food workers fought for dignityhttp://www.centredaily.com/2013/08/09/3727892/letter-to-the-editor-fast-food.html#comment-995785139<p> <em>You certainly have an inflated opinion of yourself and you don't like your opinions questioned or criticized. Read<br> more here: <br><a href="http://www.centredaily.com/2013/08/09/3727892/letter-to-the-editor-fast-food.html#comment-995778063#storylink=cpy" rel="nofollow">http://www.centredaily.com/201...</a><br></em><br>Let's add a total lack of self-awareness to the growing list of problems you have. <br>I'm done helping work through them....go pay a professional.</p>veblenSat, 10 Aug 2013 15:34:42 -0000